How do you all feel about polygamy? Would you support it or not if it became as large a political issue as the gay rights movement?

Polygamists fight to decriminalize bigamy

40,000 in 'plural marriages' work to be part of mainstream society

By John Pomfret

SALT LAKE CITY - In her battle to legalize polygamy, the only thing Valerie hasn't revealed is her last name. The mother of eight has been on national TV; her photo along with that of her two "sister-wives" has graced the front cover of a glossy magazine dedicated to "today's plural marriages."

She has been prodded about her sex life: "He rotates. It's easy -- just one, two, three." Quizzed about her decision to share a husband with two other women: "You really have a good frame of reference when you marry a man who already has two wives." Interrogated about what it's like to live in a house with 21 children: "Remodeling a kitchen, that's no small feat with three wives and a husband involved."

All the while, the petite brunette with a smile as bright as Utah's sky has insisted that she's just like you and me: "I'm a soccer mom. My kids are in music lessons. They go to public school. I'm not under anyone's control."

Very interesting question, Catherine. I certainly don't want to marginalize anyone, regardless of their preferences, but it is hard for me to see that this just isn't about some guy getting to have sex with multiple women whenever he wants. I've known plenty of people who had a few "dates" all at one time and they did it for the pleasure of knowing they were wanted by more than one person. Hell, I used to love when a few guys liked me at one time, especially if I didn't particularly like any of them more, the attention is awesome, they all vie for your attention...

Anyhow, seems like (as far as I've learned) the vast majority of polygamists are men with multiple wives and zillions of children. I just don't agree that the women are free and uncontrolled. If they aren't jealous, then I doubt they are being honest. So, that leads to a huge problem....aggggggg. This is hard to figure out for me.

I can't see polygamist rights in the same light as gay rights because in polygamy it appears to me that women are marginalized. In the gay rights movement, I don't see where anyone is marginalized.

I believe the state has in interest in not allowing polygamy for a few reasons. As lefty said, the women is these marriages are more often than not, abused. Not just mentally, but physically. There is also rampant cases of child abuse in polygamist families. I also believe that from a legal standpoint, the contract of marriage just isnt valid in these relationships due to the nature of 2 people who are supposed to support each other, I would believe having one person have to support multiple people would need a different contract all together.

We can also look at it from an economic standpoint. Companies will not have the ability to pay for insurance on a guy with 6 wives and x kids. It really does mess up the whole system we have in place. Not that thats a valid reason to keep it illegal, but it does put some obstacles in its way.

Do you think legalization would ever be talked about if it was women marrying multiple men?

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Do you think legalization would ever be talked about if it was women marrying multiple men?

I'd thought of that, greenie, when I read lefty's response. I really believe this story and this woman's attempt to see bigamy legalized gives free publicity to the Mormon church. Many Christians view the Latter Day Saints as more of a cult than an actual religion.

I believe the state has in interest in not allowing polygamy for a few reasons. As lefty said, the women is these marriages are more often than not, abused. Not just mentally, but physically. There is also rampant cases of child abuse in polygamist families. I also believe that from a legal standpoint, the contract of marriage just isn't valid in these relationships due to the nature of 2 people who are supposed to support each other, I would believe having one person have to support multiple people would need a different contract all together.

Please provide a link to the statement that you made, or clarify them as your opinion. I also did not see where Lefty implied what you stated she did, so please provide a link to your statements. When you make statements such as that we are implying that we should provide the link to it so others can read the entire report. If they are statements of our own, then we should say that. If those statement are indeed true then it would add strengh to not wanting people to have more then one wife or husband.

I was unaware this was not common knowledge. We studied it in every sociology class I ever took! So, im sure there is stuff on the net about abuse in polygamist relationships, but thats not where I got my information.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Utah court deciding if polygamist leader Warren Jeffs should face rape trial• Ex-sect member says her 14-year-old sister unhappy about arranged marriage• Jeffs, 50, accused of forcing girl to wed her first cousin• Jeffs was captured in August after being put on FBI's 10 most-wanted list

http://www.rickross.com/groups/mormon.html#Sex_Abuse (Scroll down until you come to the SEX ABUSE CLAIMS among all the other information that is organized quite well). I'm sure there are other lists that would support the Mormon church, but I am very skeptical when it comes to a religion like this where all things are controlled by men within the church.

I don't agree w/polygamy, but do believe in religious freedom and the right of adults to associate w/whomever they choose. Its funny how the same people who have no problem tearing down a 10 Commandments sign from a courthouse, banning a public nativity scene, suing to have a cross removed from public land--due to it violating the non-existent "separation of church and state" amendment--have ZERO problem with using the state to ban unpopular religious practices by a 'marginal' religion. For the sake of abused women and children, of COURSE! I remember a time, not long ago, when most people said the SAME thing about children raised in a Gay household. Also, what if it weren't an organized religion doing this, but an unmarried and agnostic 'threesome' w/multiple children living down the block? Would any of you even THINK of banning THEIR 'irregular' family situation? What it were a group of lesbians who artificially inseminated themselves? A group of gay men who adopted multiple children? Would any of you assume abuse? Or, are only 'religious fanatics' capable of abusing their children and/or partners?

The point is separating the action from the group currently practicing it. I have many problems with the culture of the Mormons, but I separate those from the act of bigamy itself which is a different issue. The problems of Mormon bigamists are not a result of bigamy or pluralistic marriage itself but of the culture of Mormonism and the behaviors and thought processes it promotes.

To be perfectly honest marriage needs to be entirely separated from the religious context, it was not considered a Holy Institution until the grasping Catholic Church came along during the Middle Ages. Prior to that it was always seen as a social contract between those people involved in Europe, moreso in Roman Europe. That is what it must be returned to, a social contract with the force of law behind it. If two people want to be married, fine, if eighteen people want to be married fine. The important part is the setting down of the terms and obligations of the marriage. Not carrying over a mechanism of social control leftover from the Catholic Church's attempted Theocracy of the past.

Many if not all of the problems associated with Mormon bigamy are due to the religious strictures of the Mormon faith. In a secular light plural marriage would actually benefit families thus engaged. It would not be a case of one man supporting multiple women it would be several people all supporting each other with the ability to pool resources. There would also be the point that once you reach about four to five adults there would always be at least one around at any time to watch the children. Without the anti-birth control beliefs of Mormonism there would be more children than a singular marriage but still not nearly so many as in Mormon bigamy. Nor would it necessarily be one man and many women, or the opposite. An organization similar numerically to a wolfpack or lion pride would likely result with arrangements like two men and three or four women due to the natural slight imbalance in gender populations.

_________________I am disillusioned enough to believe nothing will get any better yet compelled to make the attempt regardless

Many if not all of the problems associated with Mormon bigamy are due to the religious strictures of the Mormon faith.

I would disagree. I think the mormons play a minor role. Polygamy is a worldwide practice, and the problems are just as widespread. I think polygamy(possibly the religious undertones) is the problem, not mormonism in general.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Are you kidding me? Posting religious laws in a court of law doesnt endorse a religion?

Let's see what the supposed Law Of The Land (instead of the 'separation of church and state' used by anti-Christians) says about the issue:

Amendment I -

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

If you understood the origins of our Constitutional rights, you'd know that it was almost entirely founded on "God's Law". If you'd ever read this Amendment, you'd see that it says "Congress shall make no LAW respecting an establishment of religion, or PROHIBITING the free exercise thereof". Is the posting of the 10 C's at a courthouse analagous to CONGRESS PASSING A LAW? Of course not! However, thats never stopped those w/an anti-Christian agenda from saying otherwise. In fact, I'd say that the FedGovt (through their agents on the Supreme Court) violates this amendment by " prohibiting the free exercise thereof". This is the problem with 'interpreting' the Constitution, instead of READING it.

Quote:

The topic is about having more than one "mate" in the legal sense, at a time.

Do you ascribe to 'separation of church and state', or not? You can't have it both ways. You either think govt should have no say in religion, or you do. What 'legal' authority does Congress have over matters religious? Do you also support the Govt's decision to make Gay marriage illegal, or do you only support discrimination against Christian-denominated religions?

If you understood the origins of our Constitutional rights, you'd know that it was almost entirely founded on "God's Law".

Actually I do, and being married to a lawyer also help. Our laws are not gods law (after all, we can curse our parents and worship multiple gods) but are based upon British common law.(the Magna Carta being a good example) It would a quite a stretch to say our laws come from "god"

It would also be a stretch, along with an insult to the writers of the constitution and its amendments to be such a strict literalist. We need to have a mind that can see purpose and intent. Remember, if it it took was reading the words off the page, the founders wouldnt have given us judges and a supreme court. And if we look at the purpose and the intent of displaying the ten commandments, we can clearly see that the government is saying these are our laws, and what we believe. This would also clash with equal protection under the law, as it would directly discriminate against those of other faiths. The display of religious symbols and messages belongs to churches and clergy, not the government.

Quote:

Do you ascribe to 'separation of church and state', or not?

yes

Quote:

You can't have it both ways.

Did i say otherwise?

Quote:

You either think govt should have no say in religion, or you do.

Well, they do have the power to regulate, in some circumstances. I dont really believe in absolutes though.

Quote:

What 'legal' authority does Congress have over matters religious?

Well, they cant sacrifice children.

Quote:

Do you also support the Govt's decision to make Gay marriage illegal,

No

Quote:

or do you only support discrimination against Christian-denominated religions?

I dont discriminate at all.

You use the word "anti-christian" a lot (ad hom btw) but your label is quite incorrect because you are applying it to only christian oriented topics. HOWEVER, last I checked, the 10 commandments is a muslim, jewish AND christian thing.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE

Sorry, nyguy. I got a little nasty, and took some of what you said in the wrong light. Some of my responses were hasty, thanks for pointing some inconsistencies out. I was trying to say that our laws DO come out of a religious-based morality/philosophy. The whole concept of all men being created equal was put forth in the Judeo-Christian bible, and I think it is the foundation for the idea of Liberty which flourished in the West, and the early U.S., esp.

Also, for the record, I'm not a 'religious' person.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It would also be a stretch, along with an insult to the writers of the constitution and its amendments to be such a strict literalist.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I stick by my claim on this point. If we don't ascribe specific meanings to the words of the document, we, in effect, ignore the meaning of the document. I'd rather be a 'strict literalist' than a 'liberal interpretist'. How do you think it is that Bush has gotten away w/so much? Is it because the courts/Congress have strictly enforced the law, or because they've interpreted the law for their own benefit? Each of these words has a SPECIFIC meaning:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

What it means, to me un-arguably, is that CONGRESS (The People's elected reps at the nat'l level) won't pass a law est. a nat'l religion (like the Church of England), and niether will they pass a law banning ANY religion. It doesn't say that all public employees are banned from freely exercising or displaying their religion. Does a single judge posting the 10 C's carry the same weight as an act of congress? I don't think so, but obviously others do. At federal courts I could see a regulation being set that 'un-official' documents (like the 10 C's) be absent from court. What I can't understand is someone from the ACLU suing a State or locality for something like this. It can even be argued that there exists no Constitutional ban on State legislatures declaring official religions or bans on religions. The Constitution pertains, mostly, to limits on the NAT'L Govt, and the Supreme Court really should have very little say on what goes on inside a States borders.

Sorry, nyguy. I got a little nasty, and took some of what you said in the wrong light.

NP man, it happens!

Quote:

I was trying to say that our laws DO come out of a religious-based morality/philosophy.

I would disagree, and if you gave me a few examples, i think I could show you differently.

Quote:

The whole concept of all men being created equal was put forth in the Judeo-Christian bible, and I think it is the foundation for the idea of Liberty which flourished in the West, and the early U.S., esp.

All men were equal in the bible? I could go on all day long about examples in the bible where only selected people are equal. It was, most specifically, the Magna Carta which first brought forth the idea of liberty that we now know. The ideas of habeus corpus, search and seizure, property inheritance, etc.. all came from the Magna Carta. Before then, the king could go into anyones home, arrest anyone w/o trial, etc... These are a few of the ideas we hold as distinctly "American" and in no way stem from religion."As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion..." - Treaty of Tripoli

Quote:

I stick by my claim on this point. If we don't ascribe specific meanings to the words of the document, we, in effect, ignore the meaning of the document.

We also cant ignore the intent and the meaning of the document.

Quote:

How do you think it is that Bush has gotten away w/so much? Is it because the courts/Congress have strictly enforced the law, or because they've interpreted the law for their own benefit? Each of these words has a SPECIFIC meaning:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

He completely ignores all precedent.

Quote:

What it means, to me un-arguably, is that CONGRESS (The People's elected reps at the nat'l level) won't pass a law est. a nat'l religion (like the Church of England), and niether will they pass a law banning ANY religion.

But remember, the laws are not based upon the interpatation of only 1 person.

Quote:

It doesn't say that all public employees are banned from freely exercising or displaying their religion. Does a single judge posting the 10 C's carry the same weight as an act of congress?

How can a judge be fair and unbiased if he shows that the law he follows is that of god, and not those that we democratically created? There is a thing called the "Lemon" test (Lemon v. Kurtzman) 1. The government's action must have a legitimate secular purpose; 2. The government's action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion; and 3. The government's action must not result in an "excessive entanglement" with Religion.

This is what the court ruled that "respecting an establishment" means.

However, Justice O'Connor also had a test which the court had used, it is described as follows (and illustrates a point I made earlier):“The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community.” Her fundamental concern was whether the particular government action conveys “a message to non-adherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.”

Quote:

It can even be argued that there exists no Constitutional ban on State legislatures declaring official religions or bans on religions. The Constitution pertains, mostly, to limits on the NAT'L Govt, and the Supreme Court really should have very little say on what goes on inside a States borders.

14th amendment. If a state endorsed one religion, that wouldnt provide equal protection for others. Also "In 1947 the Supreme Court held in Everson v. Board of Education that the establishment clause is one of the “liberties” protected by the due-process clause. From that point on, all government action, whether at the federal, state, or local level, must abide by the restrictions of the establishment clause"

I really should just let my fiance write this part.

_________________"To argue with a man who has renounced the use and authority of reason, is like administering medicine to the dead." -- THOMAS PAINE